On March 26, 2013, the March for Marriage will descend upon Washington, D.C. for a rally and protest in support of California’s Proposition 8, which is set to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court the same day. This event, organized by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), and endorsed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is expected to bring together several social conservative organizations and their supporters to make public their support of Prop 8.

Proposition 8 was a California ballot initiative, passed in 2008, which defined marriage for the California state constitution as being between one man and one woman. That amendment was challenged in court by homosexual activists who said it was discriminatory, and the case now will go before the Supreme Court.

In stark contrast, the Respect for Marriage Coalition, a high profile LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) advocacy group, has launched an advertising campaign to garner support for legitimizing same-sex marriage. Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, appears in one of the ads saying, “Allowing them to live together with the protection of the law, it seems to me is the way we should be moving in this country.” His statement echoes President Obama’s 2013 inaugural address assertion:

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.”

Even former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, offers her support in this effort through the Americans for Marriage Equality advertisements.

Same-sex marriage advocates tug at the emotions of an already morally corrupt society in hopes of convincing on-the-fence onlookers to support their position. Guilt ridden justifications are used as meditative mantras. How can you deny two people who love one another the opportunity to share the benefits afforded to married couples? Why should LGBT people be excluded from enjoying the same quality of life as heterosexual people? God made us this way, why would you deny us our rights under the same law?

The culture of any civilization is like a onion. With each layer that is slowly peeled away in redefining God’s Word and plan for mankind, another layer of acceptance is achieved. Continue peeling, and you eventually forget what you peeled away and lost – – – until it’s too late. Yet with each generation, man feels compelled to usurp God. He methodically peels away at the onion. Sperm banks. Abortion. Euthanasia. All to protect a person’s right to immorality. Man arrogantly believes that he knows better. He wants to accommodate everyone’s preferences by altering God’s wisdom. But man’s perspective is, as always will be, short-sighted. God sees the bigger picture, and thus sees the consequences of man’s arrogance and ignorance. The maleficence of same-sex marriage is incomprehensible.

At the center of this vortex are the watchful eyes of groups who ardently believe that their unions are just as legitimate and justifiable. This perspective is not propaganda from overzealous Christians, but from these groups own public statements. They wait patiently for the next layer of the onion to be peeled away.

NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) is one of those perverse groups who are watching same-sex marriage legislation with great interest. Established in 1978, this organization has already been legitimized by the ACLU in protecting their constitutional rights. Meanwhile, they continue to seek acceptance in allowing adult men to engage in “lawful consensual sex” with boys reportedly as young as 8 years old. Basically, they seek legalized pedophilia. What is legislated as a right for one group will only spread to become a right for all groups. David Thorstad, the founder of NAMBLA, has stated publicly,

“Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream.”

Impossible, you say? People would never allow that to happen?

That’s what people thought before the 1970’s when the first efforts to legitimize same-sex unions began. Today, the United States has nine state governments (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington and the District of Columbia) that have legalized same-sex “marriage” and offer same-sex “marriages”. Their efforts were accomplished through legislation, court ruling, and in three of these states, it has been upheld by popular vote in a statewide referendum. In 1940, who would have anticipated those results?

If you think NAMBLA is some inconsequential fringe group, think again. The notoriety of NAMBLA has already mainstreamed into entertainment. A storyline in the award-winning television show, “South Park,” had Cartman, the baby character, being introduced to NAMBLA by his doctor. (Season 4, Episode 5) This “intended for mature audiences” animated show, produced by Braniff Productions and aired on Comedy Central, obviously caters to a morally deficient audience.

Yet another layer of the onion is peeled away.

Since the Church upholds Sacred Scripture, which is God’s Word, and Scripture clearly guides humans in honoring God’s plan, and God’s plan does not include homosexuality, what are Catholic Christians to do?

When Christians cite Scripture to support their position in opposing homosexuality, they are quickly accused of being judgmental. Jesus said, “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” (Matt 7:1-2 – NAB) However, let’s be clear. Reminding people of God’s Word is not judging. In fact, the Holy Church and Scripture are doing exactly what the apostle Paul calls us all to do. We have a responsibility to stand firm in supporting God’s Word and “let nothing move us.” (1 Corinthians 15:58 NAB) Therefore, when laws are proposed that defy God’s plan for mankind, both the Church and its people have a responsibility to stand resolute in protecting God’s Word. Even though man may contend that there should be separation of Church and State that doesn’t mean a separation of God from man. The apostle Peter reminds us that even though the world around us will change – – – the Word of God endures forever. (1 Peter 1:25 NAB)

However, even God’s Word is now being modified to accommodate the homosexual agenda.

In November 2012, an anonymous publisher released the \”QUEEN JAMES BIBLE.\” The anonymous editors said that they “wanted to make a book filled with the word of God that nobody could use to incorrectly condemn God’s LGBT children.” The editor basically changed the eight verses in Scripture that directly, clearly and undeniably condemn the LGBT lifestyle. The editors of the Queen James Bible justified their position by saying: “You can’t choose your sexuality, but you can choose Jesus. Now you can choose a Bible, too.”

Thus another layer of the onion is peeled away.

Be the disciple Christ intended you to be. Openly support the sanctity of marriage as defined by God. Let the words of Pope Francis inspire you:

“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Diane McKelva is an American writer and essayist living in the Southern United States. She shares stories that compel her readers to challenge their potential in life. Her work often reflects her Catholic faith, and frequently examines issues surrounding moral and ethical dilemmas, injustice, conflicts within humanity, and resilience of the human spirit. She is a contributor to numerous religious and secular publications such as Catholic Online, The National Catholic Register, Shalom Media, The Tennessee Register, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, to name a few. Her editing and creative writing talent has been utilized by such clients as US Steel, Focus Magazine, Hilton, Bayer, The University of Pittsburgh, San Jose Museum of Art, Def Jam Records, Nashville Business Journal, Marathon Oil Corporation and country music artists. She also provided work for the late Senator John Heinz (R-PA).
She is currently the Senior Editor for the online publication, Catholic Stand, owned by Little Vatican Management, founded by Tito Edwards (The National Catholic Register).

If you enjoyed this essay, subscribe below to receive a daily digest of all our essays.

Allow me to comment on this post as it obviously stands in contradiction to science, reason and civil rights while presenting Catholic position, some of which are a bit misstated. Here are some facts:
(1) The American Academy of Pediatrics on Thursday backed gay marriage and gay adoption. After a four year study and 60 meta-references, they determined that children of gay marriage suffered no disadvantage to children of straight marriage. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/health/american-academy-of-pediatrics-backs-gay-marriage.html
(2) NAMBA –this is a perverse organization with no clout and a minimal criminal following which support pedophila and ephebophilia . These are and always will be crimes. To assume a slippery slope argument that if gay marriage is approved, then come….. By definition a slippery slope argument or “camel’s nose” argument is an epistemological fallacy. A does not mean B.
Also remember that the group gained legitimacy through the efforts of pervert priest Paul Shanley who was never condemned by Cardinal Mederios, Bernie Law nor his buddy Bishop John McCormick (now of NH). He was only defrocked when about to be jailed. Also, pedo’s and ephebo’s are ususally without specific orientation:” The distinction between a victim’s gender and a perpetrator’s sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don’t really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.” http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
(3) Pope Francis and Gay Unions: In Argentina when the President supported gay marriage, which passed, Cardinal Brogolio had some very hard words about homosexuality and gay marriage, however his official biographer notes that he advocated for his bishops to support civil unions are a “lesser evil.” http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/03/pope-francis-supported-civil-unions-as-cardinal/
(4) A majority of American Catholics support gay marriages and even to a greater percentage than American in general. Results of a recent poll by Quinnipiac University, a leader in honest research and polling. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/catholics-gay-marriage-support_n_2835847.html
(5) An interesting anomaly: the most outspoken Catholic bishops and Cardinals about homosexuality were hiding their own affairs: UK head Cardinal O’Brien admitted to four affairs with fellow priests and one long terms…ardent opponent against homosexuality; Bishop Dupree, vehement against gay marriage and indicted by a grand jury in 2 molestation cases. We won’t even go into Marcel Mariel, the Founder of the Legionnaire of Christ who was defended by JP XXIII, wives, larcency, abuse of seminarians and never even defrocked. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/
(6) Last but not least, Jesus never said a word about gays in the gospels. Paul did talk in Romans about it, but … there is history there

Ryan

Phil,

I’ve seen you comment on a few posts here and this is an honest question…what are you even doing here? You are not Catholic, have an obvious bigoted disdain for Christianity in general, and know very little about the thing you ridicule. So why hang out reading posts at CATHOLIC stand and then complaining about their content? I believe that’s what’s known as “trolling”.

http://www.healingandempowerment.blogspot,.com Phil Dzialo

Ryan,

I comment on many posts on religion, not only Catholicism. I comment and follow many posts on disability and assisted suicide. I comment on areas which challenge people and their thinking and assert my beliefs. If these blogs are for Catholics alone, the administrator can feel free to block me at any time. A troll uses a false or anonymous identity. I do not. I used my real and full identity.

Ryan

1. Depends on how one defines “disadvantage”. There is an obvious bias toward homosexuality in the APA and AAP. Obviously you don’t believe this, but many do (like former presidents of the APA), so there’s our stalemate. I’d like to point out though that endorsing same-sex “marriage” and adoption is a moral or political statement. I this way the APA or AAP is stepping outside of its discipline.

2.The same arguments used to support same-sex “marriage” are already being used to defend NAMBLA’s goals and even polygamy. This is a fact. If we are going to ignore any real definition with regard to marriage, why not allow whoever wants to “marry” anyone (or anything) to do so? This is a serious question.

3. This is a distortion of the Pope’s actual words and point. Still, even if he did, what does this prove? Nothing.

4. As has been pointed out to you before with regard to the “everybody’s doing it” argument…irrelevant. The majority voted against same-sex “marriage” in California. Would you accept, as an argument against same-sex “marriage” someone saying, “but the majority of Californians don’t want same-sex “marriage”? Of course not. Truth is not determined by popular vote. Speaking of fallacies…

5. Your use of the word “most” is downright silly here. You cited three guys. Three. Also, there was no JP XXIII. Also IRRELEVANT.

6. Jesus did speak about marriage and always assumed it referred to one man and one woman. Jesus also never said anything about polluting the environment, genocide, female genital mutilation, universal healthcare, gun control, animal torture, pedophilia, home invasion, rape, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, etc. etc. The Church bases Her moral teaching primarily off the Natural Law, not “stuff Jesus said”. Once again, and I say this in love…another example of how you do not even understand the thing you hate and rant against.

http://www.healingandempowerment.blogspot,.com Phil Dzialo

OK, only because you ask and do so kindly

1. The APA, AMA, and AAP develop opinions based upon scholarly research; morality generally flows from a religious perspective. I believe that political and legal policy should flow from scholarship, not religion. Several religions already approve of same sex marriage; many do not. So whatever SCOTUS decides it cannot affect what churches sanction of same sex marriage or not. SCOTUS only deals with the civil rights of all people; not religious mandate.
2. NAMBLA is criminal, perverse and society (religious or not) will never sanction sex with children. Whatever arguments NAMBLA uses…no one except perverts listen to.
3. I’m not distorting Francis words…what they leave open my belief that the male Catholic priesthood is an imposed discipline by the Church, not an infallible dogma.
4.Just pointing out that the majority of RC’s support gay unions to a higher degree than other religiously or non-religiously affiliated groups. It a problem within the ranks. People are not listening.Prop 8 was passed by huge infusions of last minute money.
5. Please refer to my reference: http://www.bishopaccountability.com
6. “it is always assumed”…can’t discuss assumptions. Assumption is something taken for granted, a supposition one needs no proof to assume anything. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs.

“Natural law”..natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature—both social and personal—and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is classically contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state, and thus serves as a standard by which to criticize said positive law. So which of us defines natural law…I would say the power of individual conscience guided by reason, introspection, scholarship, etc. Your definition may be different and that’s ok.

We were doing fine until you invoked your right to accuse me of hating that which I don’t understand. That’s commmonly known as a conversation ender. Questioning, criticism, rejection…none of that equals hate.

enness

1) Don’t give a damn. They are not immune to bad ideas.
2) “These are and always will be crimes” And how would you know that? Where can I get a crystal ball like yours?
3) Cardinals are human beings, thus, imperfect and — again — not immune to errors of judgment.
4) Pfft. Really, really don’t give a damn. I would not be the least bit surprised if a majority of American “Catholics” don’t believe in the Real Presence, because they have been subjected to decades of shoddy education.
5) And that invalidates any non-hypocrite’s argument because…?
6) It wasn’t necessary to say anything after reaffirming ‘male and female He made them, and this is why…” etc. When Jesus leaves space, it doesn’t mean you get to play Mad Libs.

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts.

R.C.

Ah, Phil,

1. It is a violation of the human rights of a child to deprive them of fathering by their biological father, mothering by their biological mother, and family-ing by their biological family. It is a violation of the human rights of any adult person to willfully prevent them from knowing the identity of their biological parents or to prevent them from initiating contact with them should they not already have that relationship. Accidents and disease happen. But if a child becomes motherless or fatherless because of the willful actions of an adult — to include gay adoption, anonymous sperm donation, no-fault divorce, et cetera — that adult ought to be prosecuted for violating the child’s rights. Together with abortion, these violations of the rights of children constitute THE human rights depredation of the 20th and 21st centuries, comparable to slavery in the 18th and 19th.

2. NAMBLA is criminal right now, but fifty years from now, or a hundred? Please. A hundred years ago, so was alienation of affection through adultery. Likewise, in various places, prostitution. Societies change; the Greeks before now had a society in which men habitually took boys as masturbatory tools; why should ours be any different if we are disconnected from the natural law?

3. Please see Jimmy Akin’s recent piece re: the obligation of Catholics, if they are unable to prevent the passage of evil laws, to advocate for the passage of lesser-evils to prevent or attenuate the harms of the greater ones. It deals with the Francis-civil unions issue.

4. A majority of American Catholics probably aren’t. And the goal of the Church is to preach the truth to those who don’t yet know it or are confused about it, not to water it down for those who can’t take their truth straight. And since when is God’s opinion about reality up for a democratic vote? If 65% of Americans were offered a choice of retirement destination and opted for Hell, wouldn’t you try to be discerning and choose a spot with better amenities and a more enlightened local government…even if most of your countrymen, for reasons of their own, chose otherwise? (Or would you be a lemming and say that a majority of your countrymen just couldn’t be wrong? Show some independent thought, man!)

5. There have always been Judas priests since, well, Judas. If Jesus could do no better than eleven out of twelve, what hope have we of a pure clergy? And there have ALWAYS been priests who were sinners in various ways, which tended to differ according to the culture. Probably 75% of Southern Baptist preachers in the Bible Belt are morbidly obese. Probably an outright majority of Episcopal ministers posted in large cities are out-and-out heretics by anyone’s standards including last century’s most faithful Anglicans. Again, show some independent thought: If one’s fellow human beings are opting to go to hell, or risking it, or struggling with sin in what seems like a losing battle, does it help anything for you to respond by claiming that sin is not sin? Are you so much more of a follower, than a leader? Bit of an appeaser?

6. Of course Jesus said nothing specifically about homosexuality. He said nothing about the use of nuclear weapons or crack cocaine, either. He did not tell us, either, that blind people ought not to try to ensure that their children are blind, or that folks with pica ought not to “welcome their disorder as an alternative dietary lifestyle.” God is not such a fool as to preach sermons that his audience had no need to hear.

You seem to be approaching the Bible the way a toothless inbred 1800’s Kentucky-foothills snake-handler would. Are you aware that, over the last 2,000 years, from Origen to Augustine and Jerome to Bede and Boethius to Aquinus and Duns Scotus, Christians have tended to look at Scripture in a more sophisticated fashion? And Catholics, most of all, because of the benefits of the Magisterium and the successor of Peter?

Let me lay it out for you: The whole of Christian teaching on faith and morals is assumed in Scripture, but it is not spelled out in detail in Scripture. Huge swaths of the teaching are left merely assumed, or referenced glancingly. The reason is simple: The New Testament is not a Catechism. No single book in it was ever written with the intent of being a Catechism, or a Liturgical handbook, or a book or Canon Law, or any of a hundred other book-types that are required for the practice of a religion. Nor does the compilation together of four biographies, one travelogue, a bunch of letters, a sermon-text, and a man’s record of a divinely-granted apocalyptic vision have much likelihood of coincidentally happening to produce a Catechism by their combination in a single volume.

You can learn a fair bit about Christianity that way, because you can read in between the lines and figure out what the assumptions of the authors are. But since much is left unstated, you’re likely to get a lot of stuff wrong.

No, that is not how the Church delivers truth. If the Church had been aware that people would misuse the Bible the way they have, she might have thought twice about compiling it to begin with — and she didn’t bother to formally fix the table of contents until 380-ish, anyhow!

No, no, no. Look at what Jesus said about sexual morality, and what Paul said, and how the early Christians — who after all learned their faith directly from the apostles, and from men who’d learned it from the apostles — understood it. Didn’t you know that the Early Church Fathers wrote a lot of stuff down?

Look at THAT, and you find that the rules of Christian sexual morality are along these lines:

1. No orgasms outside of marital sex.
2. Marital sex is intended to be loving and fruitful, and children are a blessing from God, not a disease to be avoided with medication or prophylaxis.
3. One man, one woman: As it was in the beginning. Moses “gave you divorce because your hearts were hard, but I say to you…” that marriage is permanent: If a man divorce his wife and marry another, he commits adultery, for whatever the civil law may say, valid Christian marriage is unseverable.
4. The unmarried are to remain celibate, and this is an opportunity for them to serve the Lord more fully.

That’s the deal.

Now, put all that aside for a moment, and let us focus on something more important:

Phil Dzialo, do you eat God’s flesh and drink His blood?

Jesus said “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life in him, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Phil, if resurrection to eternal life seems of interest to you, check out John’s gospel, chapter 6.

Now if that’s of no interest to you, then why bother making points from a book (the Bible) that you don’t know much about and (let’s be frank) are apt to misuse through misunderstanding? (It can be a complex topic, you know.)

But if experiencing the love of God, having Him sanctify you and spiritually mature you and conquer in you those long-lingering habitual sins you’ve always wrestled with…if becoming, in the end, a saint is of any interest to you…if going to heaven has any appeal…then there are probably more fruitful topics to learn about than the ones you’ve raised here. Those are peripheral issues; but there are essential ones to learn about, which might help you more.

Respectfully,

R.C.

http://www.healingandempowerment.blogspot,.com Phil Dzialo

“toothless inbred” is hardly a kind word from a Christian

Ryan

Phil,

I’m interested in your reply to the points made here.

http://www.healingandempowerment.blogspot,.com Phil Dzialo

I am sorry, Ryan, though I would like to respond, I do not respond to people who call me a “toothless inbred”, nor do I respond to people who use “slippery slope arguments” which are by definition epistemological fallacies. I also do not respond to people who intentionally distort facts and data. A Christian discussion with a pantheist should be based on scholarship and reason, not on nonsensical dibble. If you want A polite answer e-mail me your questions at philipdz@aol.com. I will politely engage you in detail.

enness

Phil, he did not call YOU that. “Like” is sometimes an important word.

And you go ahead bury your head in the sand…slippery slope is always a fallacy until you get to watch it actually happen.

With any controversial issue it’s easy to point to a handful of studies or a selection of Bible quotes which appear to support the opinions with which we are inclined to agree. But statistics can be manipulated, research biased and quotations taken out of context. Ultimately we have free will to accept certain truths, weigh the evidence, pray, discern and come to our own conclusions. What I have observed is that there is an incredible sense of peace that follows the “right” choice, and total uneasiness and discomfort with the wrong one. That’s why blogs like Catholic Stand are so valuable. The fact that we are all reading these entries, and commenting, means there is always hope for a change of heart or a flash of insight. The Holy Spirit is definitely at work here. And one final point, please don’t ever let the personal sin of any priest, bishop or cardinal justify abandoning the Church that Christ founded!

P.D. Yoko

Phil,

Thank you for having the courage to express your opinion. Trolling or not, you obviously continue being lead to this site for some purpose. Perhaps you don’t even know that True purpose – – – yet. I applaud your willingness to enter into a discussion in an open forum on this issue. It’s not a topic for the fainthearted.

I will not debate every point that you have presented here. Ryan seems to have covered a response rather well.

Yet, as for your skepticism that other groups will not achieve the same accommodations in allowing them to “marry” the ones they choose, perhaps this latest news will shock you back to reality: “Boris Dittrich, the homosexual activist called the “father” of the political movement in favor of Dutch same-sex “marriage”, has admitted that group marriages of three or more people, is the next, inevitable logical step in the dismantling of the western world’s traditional marriage laws.” http://tinyurl.com/ag6dh8y

Please keep in mind 100 years ago no one would have fathomed the concept that abortion would be so easy to obtain, and that people could use abortion to select what type of child they wanted. Or that a single individual could opt out of marriage all together and go straight to a sperm bank where they could select a donor, get impregnated and give birth to a child, who might in fact be a distant relative. Talk about a genetics nightmare. The point here is if you redefine marriage for one group, you will certainly be asked to redefine it for another group. As outlandish as group marriage, marriage to animals, children, family members may sound to you now, in 100 years that layer of the onion will have long been ground up in the disposal of moral relativism, and no one will remember it was once considered taboo. Unless of course, it’s a politicial campaign by a liberal-moral-relative-centrist who wants to remind us just how far we have come to advance our cultural enlightenment!

Moral relativism is a real and growing problem in the world. Catholics, Protestants, Non-Christians, atheists, agnostics, you name it, are increasingly trying to find ways to justify immoral behavior. It is just easier. Why have a God you can’t see dictate to you what is right and wrong? Having to hold a moral compass in your soul and recognize that there is a life after this one and that you have to travel a certain path to get there is just too darn difficult! So, let’s change the rules. Make them more user-friendly.

Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are based on culture. It is merely a person’s individual choice. If you support moral relativism, you believe that we can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what’s right for you. I’ll decide what’s right for me. I won’t follow your moral compass. I don’t expect you to follow mine. Basically, moral relativism says, “It’s true for me, if I believe it.”

I gather from previous comments here that you are not a Christian or that you even believe in God. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t wish to misrepresent you. However, for just a moment let me ask you to ponder this perspective. A loving God who created you and me, and loves us beyond our understanding, would not have created man and woman in His own image and then called homosexuality an abomination – if it were in fact by His design. He would not and will not ever deny one of His children, unless they deny Him. (2 Timothy 2:12) If God created LGBT persons and intended them to live a life different from his original creation, He would have instructed Christ to address the issue when He walked the earth, thereby eliminating any mistake or misunderstanding of what God intended for the generations that followed. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, because of immoral behavior, including homosexuality. Wasn’t that enough of a message? God is a loving and compassionate Father, but like any good parent, He is also a good disciplinarian. He said that homosexuality is wrong. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t listen, and He left an impression that no one forgot. Did He have to spell it out in the Ten Commandments? Surely, He didn’t feel it necessary to repeat Himself. Now here we are in 2013, man chooses to justify homosexuality in assuming that since God made him – – – God must condone the homosexual relationship. Moral relativism.

Phil, please keep reflecting on this issue. Search your heart. Engage in prayer to ask God and the Holy Spirit for wisdom and guidance. Even if you don’t believe in God, He believes in you. I will also pray for you and your discernment. We are all spiritual beings living a human experience. Sometimes we get lost in the human conflict and lose perspective. But the Holy Spirit is always there to put us back on track if we seek him.

Mary Ann is correct. A willingness to debate these issues shows a willingness to try to the best of our abilities to live as God intended. It shows a desire to understand and respect God’s will for our lives regardless of which side of the issue we are standing.

Note the headline – I found it interesting that withIn the article they speak of ‘at risk groups’ but do not name them. Perhaps stating the obvious is too much. I used to shake my head when people wanted to discuss the ‘normalcy’ of same sex attraction/marriage. How can it be normal when our bodies are not designed to join that way, in particular male bodies. Females on the other hand cannot join at all -

Christine

The Center for Disease Control has no problem stating who is having a problem:
This CDC study, was largely ignored in the mainstream media, but was reported on Fox.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/

Once again God’s wisdom is something we like to ignore.

NDP

Phil: Do you think all homosexuality is inborn (B in LGBT) and if there are people for whom there’s some ambiguity does that matter